Introduction
The paper reports on observation made on team performance composed of people with diverse experiences, in an unpredictable situation using a mid-fidelity ship-bridge simulation and analyzed through the application concept of joint activity and Wood’s theory building on data load. It will assist in gaining insight into the effects of institutional preparedness, design and communication. This will help in improving the response strategies in humanitarian crisis and give insight into the plausible causes of action. In this case, teams are defined by their cognitive and coordination capabilities and these parameters are used to assess the performance. The study also reports on the possible barriers that affect the control.
Methods
A mid-fidelity ship-bridge simulator was used to evaluate the team coordination capabilities in unpredictable situations. A team was put in the same place and consisted of members with diverse experience and the aim was to take the ship safely from one place to another. The teams were composed of between 5 and 7 participants who are caught up in a stormy ride through the Atlantic Ocean. There were written manual on each team member responsibility and the task allocation was done amongst the team. The simulation program was then run on a laptop and the data was being logged in throughout the experiment. Each team went through two simulations each lasting up to three hours. The team was then debriefed focusing on their specific roles and reflecting on the part that they played in preventing the crisis from getting bad to worse (223).
Data Analysis and Results
The simulations were recorded and then the data was qualitatively analyzed using the control and coordination matrices that had been designed prior to the experiment. The analysis revealed four types of teams, one was well coordinated, task allocation and fully informed decision. They no team coordination, every member did what they thought was right and with no follow up thus becoming reactive rather than proactive. In this case, the manager ensured that the decisions were made in consensus and kept updating the team on the new information streaming in. The second one had a fully informed leader who ensured that the all the tasks are coordinated. The team relied on the leader to make informed decisions and thus acted only on his instructions. The decisions were hierarchical and at some points, the leader was overwhelmed thus unable to process the information timely. In the third one, there was a team that was rigid with strict division of responsibilities. The members avoided complex roles on the basis that it felt in the domain of another teammate. They however made effort to brief each other on their areas. The rigid work plan was a barrier as the situation was dynamic and kept escalating requiring new strategies. Finally, the last team was proactive and had a strategy on the course of action to take. The members were responsible in making decisions pertaining to their area and the leader was not responsible for gathering or disseminating the data. Each team member reminded the other one on their intrinsic role of ensuring that they perform as expected. The team leader ensured that the level of coordination was right and suggested updates as the situation demanded.
Conclusion
The study demonstrated the need for application of various theoretical concepts to shed light on the requirements of an escalating situation. There is a need to go beyond sharing data in a crisis situation as this may lead to the team being reactive rather than proactive. The study that shows that application of cognitive activities in a crisis management may lead to contrasting position on the team dynamics and success in an escalating situation.
References
Bergström, J., Dahlström, N., Henriqson, E., & Dekker, S. (2010). Team Coordination in Escalating Situations: An Empirical Study Using Mid-Fidelity Simulation. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18(4), 220-230. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 5973.2010.00618.x
